Better Gang Prevention :: Gang Essays

Better Gang Prevention   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Gang Prevention and Deterrence Act was presented by Sen. Orrin Hatch and Diane Feinstein in the winter of 2003. The Act stated an increase in funding for the federal prosecutors and FBI agents needed to conduct coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs. There are much better alternatives than trying to pass a law that most people will never even hear about, or increasing funding for prosecutors and FBI agents. Creating new gang-prosecution offences will not prevent teens from getting into gangs. Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney in Denver, Co. also suggested sports and mentoring programs. We should not just focus on the children and forget about the adults, help those adults that are already gang involved by actually employing them, but under certain guidelines. If there were more options out there, people would be to mentally and physically busy to even consider joining a gang. Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act would not do a ny good to assist in the fight against gangs.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Increasing funding to various federal organizations is not the way to prevent teens from joining street gangs. If kids have no extracurricular activities, they end up roaming the streets with nothing to do. They eventually start hanging around the wrong types of crowds, eventually ending up using drugs or joining a gang, for protection or just to belong. They are taught that going to jail is not a big deal and most of them already have relatives who are incarcerated anyway, so what’s to fear. The largest street gangs like the Almighty Latin Kings Nation and the Imperial Gangster Disciples have already formed branches in every major prison across the United States. So the government thinks these criminals are suffering behind bars, just think of these prisons as a big get-to-gather. So let’s try and catch the problem before it happens. Instead of just punishing these kids for choosing the wrong path, let’s help guide them down the right road.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Give the kids and teens after-school programs such as sports and mentoring programs. The government should not waste money funding useless laws, instead it should build more boys and girls clubs in the neighborhoods where gangs are likely appearing to organize. Most people who join a gang are just looking for a sense of belonging. These programs will show them they are smart and talented. It is that sense of belonging when they’re in an after-school group. Better Gang Prevention :: Gang Essays Better Gang Prevention   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Gang Prevention and Deterrence Act was presented by Sen. Orrin Hatch and Diane Feinstein in the winter of 2003. The Act stated an increase in funding for the federal prosecutors and FBI agents needed to conduct coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs. There are much better alternatives than trying to pass a law that most people will never even hear about, or increasing funding for prosecutors and FBI agents. Creating new gang-prosecution offences will not prevent teens from getting into gangs. Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney in Denver, Co. also suggested sports and mentoring programs. We should not just focus on the children and forget about the adults, help those adults that are already gang involved by actually employing them, but under certain guidelines. If there were more options out there, people would be to mentally and physically busy to even consider joining a gang. Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act would not do a ny good to assist in the fight against gangs.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Increasing funding to various federal organizations is not the way to prevent teens from joining street gangs. If kids have no extracurricular activities, they end up roaming the streets with nothing to do. They eventually start hanging around the wrong types of crowds, eventually ending up using drugs or joining a gang, for protection or just to belong. They are taught that going to jail is not a big deal and most of them already have relatives who are incarcerated anyway, so what’s to fear. The largest street gangs like the Almighty Latin Kings Nation and the Imperial Gangster Disciples have already formed branches in every major prison across the United States. So the government thinks these criminals are suffering behind bars, just think of these prisons as a big get-to-gather. So let’s try and catch the problem before it happens. Instead of just punishing these kids for choosing the wrong path, let’s help guide them down the right road.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Give the kids and teens after-school programs such as sports and mentoring programs. The government should not waste money funding useless laws, instead it should build more boys and girls clubs in the neighborhoods where gangs are likely appearing to organize. Most people who join a gang are just looking for a sense of belonging. These programs will show them they are smart and talented. It is that sense of belonging when they’re in an after-school group.

Argumentative Essay Essay

Analysis of â€Å"We should cherish our children’s freedom to think† â€Å"We Should Cherish Our Children’s Freedom to Think† is written by Kie Ho and expresses his belief of the education in the US. Throughout the article he argues that the American school system â€Å"is not perfect, but it is a great deal better than any other† (Ho, 2007, p. 114). His arguments are reflected through his thoughts and experiences but are weakened by vague evidence. Ho (2007) states that since public school has provided children with opportunities and direction to fulfill their creativity, the US has developed into a country of innovation. He strongly supports this claim with his own experience and idea. On a (2007)â€Å"excursion to the Laguna Beach Museum of Art, where the work of schoolchildren was on exhibit† (p. 113) Ho got the idea that supports his argument. (2007) When public schools give students opportunities to participate in creative activities, the general public assumes that this freedom to choose is universal. This is not true according to Ho’s different personal sources. (2007) A Polish refugee, a German friend and a Lebanese believe that the American education system is far behind their home countries. Ho’s evidence for his first argument favors his reasoning, but is vague on documenting sources. This weakens his argument a lot and results in less persuasive evidence. He assumes that the idea of people who thinking freedom to choose is a norm without any supporting evidence and that the information from his friends is trustworthy knowledge. Furthermore, Ho (2007) makes a comparison between the imagination of his childhood in Indonesia and his son at school in the US. Ho explains that, (2007)â€Å"When I was 12 in Indonesia, where education followed the Dutch system, I had to memorize the names of all the world’s major cities† (p. 13). While (2007) his son at the same age grew up in California had not much knowledge about world’s major cities but had a better imagination because he took creative geography at the age of 6. Both these examples are good strong arguments and support his belief that the American school system has given children a better imagination by introducing creative thinking in class. But then again his personal sources are weak evidence towards making a conclusion that (2007) imagination helps children to learn because it can help them to visualize what they are learning. This idea is also drawn from his son’s life, but is not supported by any other evidence than what he believes. Additionally he feels like the education system took away an important factor in his learning; the ability to â€Å"experiment freely with ideas† (Ho, 2007, p. 113) and gain confidence. (2007) When looking at the quality of the school one does not include the factor of freedom but only how knowledgeable a student is. Consequently this takes him to the counter part of his story were his son was awarded for using his imagination in an essay at school. The evidence strengthens Ho’s argument of that the school system gives a student freedom to choose and gain more confidence when awarded for trying new ways. When looking at the quality of his sources the argumentative appeal weakens a lot. He draws a conclusion from his own experience and assumes that â€Å"disgruntled American parents forget†¦[that] their children are able to experiment freely with ideas† (Ho, 2007, p. 113). If he would have had a supporting source to this claim, rather than only his own experience the argument would stand much stronger. Ho’s next evidence is based on his statement where he admits (2007)â€Å"that American education does not meet high standards† (p. 113) but only because of how the system is now. If one would make American education meet high standards, students wouldn’t be able to function in the way they do now. This is the weakest point of Ho’s argumentative appeal. The argument in some sort misleading because he is later claiming that â€Å"Our public education certainly is not perfect, but it is a great deal better than any other† (Ho, 2007, p. 114). When combining these two ideas he’s saying that (2007) a school system that does not meet high standards in basic courses is basically still a great deal better than any other because of the creativity and confidence it gives students. Ho wants to keep the school system how it is now and not put any more stress on the students with providing them with a higher quality education. Here again Ho doesn’t cite any of his sources. How can he know that providing students with a higher quality education will make them not function the way they do now. It is no doubt that the American school system is bad, but there is no proof that making it better would â€Å"retard their impulses, [and] frustrate their opportunities for self-expression† (Ho, 2007, p. 113). Overall the argumentative appeal in this argument is weak because of the lack of sources and misleading evidence but leads you in some way towards his overall belief. Finally, Ho argues that (2007) critics of American education do not understand the real purpose of the education. In all studies that are done on education the only measurement that has been left out is freedom. He explains that it’s omitted because people have never had freedom in education and therefor never seen the positive effects. To clarify this he applies this to that the importance of freedom in education â€Å"extends even to children the license to freely speak, write and be creative† (Ho, 2007, p. 114). Here Ho relates the first amendment into to right to freely speak or write. This makes a lot stronger evidence for his argument. But on the other side he still doesn’t cite any of his sources and in particular the last sentence were he writes â€Å"Our public education certainly is not perfect, but is a great deal better than any other† (Ho, 2007, p. 114). These words are very strong and almost make it look like he exaggerates to make his cause clearer. Ho is right in some way of his saying but from the general public viewpoint he is wrong. If Ho look at school as an institution that is supposed to teach students to experiment with ideas and fulfill their creativity he is absolutely right. However this is not the real purpose of school. School is an institution made for students to gain knowledge and not mental skills. Ho has several good arguments for his cause but I think his arguments are not strong enough. The starting argument I would say connects to the topic well, but is not very strong. The reason the US is a country of innovation is not only because of the school system, there is other more important factors that made this happened. Later he draws a conclusion about that children need the American school system the way it is to function. This is a little less good of an argument, he doesn’t cite the evidence anywhere and here a chance he made this up by himself. Continuing on, he claims that increasing the quality of the school will retard student’s impulses. This claim is also vague. There is no evidence of this happening, and he doesn’t say that it has even been tried. At last he finishes of saying that American education is good enough the way it is now. I would say I disagree with him at this point. American education does provide a lot of freedom in education, but this generates a lot lower level of knowledge and therefor goes against what education really is about, to learn as much as possible and get a broader perspective of the world.

What Was Imperial Chinas Civil Service Exam System

For more than 1,200 years, anyone who wanted a government job in imperial China had to pass a very difficult test first. This system ensured that the government officials who served in the imperial court were learned and intelligent men, rather than just political supporters of the current emperor, or relatives of previous officials. Meritocracy The civil service exam system in imperial China was a system of testing designed to select the most studious and learned candidates for appointment as bureaucrats in the Chinese government. This system governed who would join the bureaucracy between 650 CE and 1905, making it the worlds longest-lasting meritocracy. The scholar-bureaucrats mainly studied the writings of Confucius, the sixth-century BCE sage who wrote extensively on governance, and of his disciples. During the exams, each candidate had to demonstrate a thorough, word-for-word knowledge of the Four Books and Five Classics of ancient China. These works included among others the Analects of Confucius; Great Learning, a Confucian text with commentary by Zeng Zi; Doctrine of the Mean , by Confuciuss grandson; and Mencius, which is a collection of that sages conversations with various kings. In theory, the imperial examination system insured that government officers would be chosen based on their merit, rather than on their family connections or wealth. A peasants son could, if he studied hard enough, pass the exam and become an important high scholar-official. In practice, a young man from a poor family would need a wealthy sponsor if he wanted freedom from work in the fields, as well as access to the tutors and books necessary to successfully pass the rigorous exams.  However, just the possibility that a peasant boy could become a high official was very unusual in the world at that time. The Exam The examination itself lasted between 24 and 72 hours. The details varied throughout the centuries, but generally, the candidates were locked into small cells with a board for a desk and bucket for a toilet. Within the allotted time, they had to write six or eight essays in which they explained ideas from the classics, and used those ideas to solve problems in government. Examinees brought their own food and water into the room. Many also tried to smuggle in notes, so they would be thoroughly searched before entering the cells. If a candidate died during the exam, the test officials would roll his body in a mat and throw it over the test compound wall, rather than allowing relatives to come into the examination zone to claim it. Candidates took local exams, and those who passed could sit for the regional round. The very best and brightest from each region then went on to the national exam, where often only eight or ten percent passed to become imperial officials. History of the Exam System The earliest imperial exams were administered during the Han Dynasty (206 BCE to 220 CE) and continued in the brief Sui era, but the testing system was standardized in Tang China (618 - 907 CE). The reigning Empress Wu Zetian of Tang particularly relied on the imperial examination system for recruiting officials. Although the system was designed to ensure that government officials were learned men, it grew corrupt and outdated by the time of the Ming (1368 - 1644) and Qing (1644 - 1912) Dynasties. Men with connections to one of the court factions - either the scholar-gentry or the eunuchs - could sometimes bribe the examiners for a passing score. During some periods, they skipped the exam entirely and got their positions through pure nepotism.   In addition, by the nineteenth century, the system of knowledge had begun to seriously break down. In the face of European imperialism, Chinese scholar-officials looked to their traditions for solutions.  However, some two thousand years after his death, Confucius did not always have an answer for modern problems such as the sudden encroachment of foreign powers on the Middle Kingdom. The imperial examination system was abolished in 1905, and the Last Emperor Puyi abdicated the throne seven years later.